Legal Question in Personal Injury in California

Re: Right of Ownership of Artwork

No. This is an intellectual property law issue. When the artwork was given to you acquired the rights to the image. You should hire an attorney to pursue your rights.

Re: Right of Ownership of Artwork

Not sure as this is an area I am not that familiar with.

Re: Right of Ownership of Artwork

The artist and, by extension, his estate own the rights to the copyright and also dor the right to make prints. . . but here you owned the copy from which the prints were made so at the very least you may have a claim here for that.

Good luck.

Re: Right of Ownership of Artwork

This question really should be posted in the "Copyright" forum. What you are essentially asking is who owns the right to make prints and reproductions of an original piece of art. Generally, unless sold or given away by agreement, the artist retains the right to make reproductions and prints of the original. This right survives the artists' death for a statutory period of years. A purchaser of the original only has the right to own the original.

Re: Right of Ownership of Artwork

Generally speaking, the sale of an artwork does not include the sale of the copyright, which belongs to the artist unless and until he transfers it to someone else. You thus do not have the right to make prints unless you acquired that right in addition to the painting itself.

It does not follow from this that "one of the heirs" has the right to make and sell copies of this print, unless the artist's will named that particular heir as the recipient of the rights to this painting. If the will is silent on this point then the laws of intestacy in the state where the will was probated will determine who owns what portion of the copyrights to the artist's body of work. Since your question suggests that there were multiple heirs and since this was done in a rather clandestine manner, my guess is that this individual is trying to get away with something to whioch he is not entitled.

Further, the fact that someone else owns the copyright does not entitle them to simply take away your painting without your permission. It seems to me that you have the right to refuse to allow the painting to go anywhere without your consent (unless your contract with the gallery gives them the right to loan it out) or to insist on a rental payment as a condition to letting someone else use it. The fact that you can't make copies yourself doesn't mean you have to give up your right to control your own property for the sake of the person who does have such rights -- let alone for the sake of a person who might not.

I don't know how much money is at stake here, but if it is a lot then you might want to file suit for conversion and trespass to chattels (only one of these will work since they are essentially mutually exclusive, and the trespass to chattels claim strikes me as the better one, but I would allege both); if this happened in California you can also sue for unfair business practices. You may also want to include the gallery, which presumably did not have the right to loan out the painting without your consent. It seems to me that you should be able to claim all of his profits from any sales he might make, since the only way he was able to realize those profits was by violating your rights to control the painting (again, this assumes the gallery lacked the authority to lend it out).

You shouldn't delay, though, since there is an equitable doctrine called laches which may prevent you from suing for damages which you could have prevented by suing earlier.